Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. INTRODUCTION
ANY utilities have daily load patterns which exhibit extreme variation between peak and offpeak hours because
people use less electricity on Saturday than on weekdays, less
on Sundays than on Saturdays, and at a lower rate between midnight and early morning than during the day [5], [13], [64], [66],
[104]. If sufficient generation to meet the peak is kept on line
throughout the day, it is possible that some of the units will be
operating near their minimum generating limit during the offpeak period. The problem confronting the system operator is to
determine which units should be taken offline and for how long.
In most of the interconnected power systems, the power
requirement is principally met by thermal power generation.
Several operating strategies are possible to meet the required
power demand, which varies from hour to hour over the day.
It is preferable to use an optimum or suboptimum operating
strategy based on economic criteria. In other words, an important criterion in power system operation is to meet the power
demand at minimum fuel cost using an optimal mix of different
power plants. Moreover, in order to supply high-quality electric
power to customers in a secured and economic manner, thermal
unit commitment (UC) is considered to be one of best available
options. It is thus recognized that the optimal UC of thermal
systems, which is the problem of determining the schedule
of generating units within a power system, subject to device
and operating constraints results in a great saving for electric
utilities. So the general objective of the UC problem is to
minimize system total operating cost while satisfying all of the
Manuscript received September 2, 2003.
The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering at the Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667, India.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2003.821611
1197
(1.1)
where
(Fuel cost) is the input/output(I/O) curve that
is modeled with a curve (normally quadratic).
(1.2)
, , and are the cost coefficients.
is described by
The maintenance cost
(1.3)
where
is the base maintenance cost, and
mental maintenance cost.
is described by
The startup cost
is the incre-
(1.4)
1198
is described by
(1.5)
where
number of units;
number of time periods;
forecasted price for for period t;
up/down status of unit i;
power generation of unit i during time period t;
forecasted demand during time period t.
Reserve power and transmission losses are as per contract and
the rest of the constraints are the same as generic UC problem.
Similarly, network-constrained UC problem under both regulated and deregulated environment can be extended by incorporating the following system constraint parallel with (1.1) and
(1.6)
Power-flow equation of the power network
Ramp rate
where
Power balance
losses
Must run units
these units include prescheduled units which must be online, due to operating reliability and/or economic considerations;
Must out units
units which are on forced outages and maintenance are
unavailable for commitment;
Spinning reserve
spinning reserve requirements are necessary in the operation of a power system if load interruption is to be minimal. This necessity is due partly to certain outages of
equipment. Spinning reserve requirements may be specified in terms of excess megawatt capacity or some form of
reliability measures;
Crew constraints
certain plants may have limited crew size which prohibits the simultaneous starting up and/or shutting down
of two or more units at the same plant. Such constraints
would be specified by the times required to bring a unit
online and to shut down the unit.
Redefining the UC problem for the deregulated environment
[23] involves changing the demand constraints from an equality
to less than or equal, and changing the objective function
from cost minimization to profit (revenue-operational cost)
maximization. Now the generic UC problem under deregulated
environment can be formulated as
where
and
where
and
are, respectively, minimum and
maximum value of reactive power at PV bus .
The inequality constraint on voltage magnitude V of each
PQ bus
where
and
are, respectively, minimum and
maximum voltage at bus .
of voltage at
The inequality constraint on phase angle
all of the buses
where
and
are, respectively, minimum and
maximum voltage angles allowed at bus .
MVA flow limit on transmission line
(1.6)
Subject to the following constraints:
where
is the maximum rating of transmission
line connecting bus and .
1199
A. Exhaustive Enumeration
The UC problem has been earlier solved by enumerating all
possible combinations of the generating units and then the combinations that yield the least cost of operation are chosen as the
optimal solution. In [104], Kerr, et al., and in [66], Hara, et al.,
solved the UC problem successfully including Florida Power
Corporation by using the exhaustive enumeration method. Even
though the method was not suitable for a large size electric
utility, it was capable of providing an accurate solution.
B. Priority Listing
Priority listing method initially arranges the generating
units based on lowest operational cost characteristics. The
predetermined order is then used for UC such that the system
load is satisfied. Burns et al. [105] and Lee [38] handled the UC
problem, using priority order. Shoults, et al. [109] presented a
straightforward and computationally efficient algorithm using
priority order including import/export constraints. Lee [36] and
Lee et al. [34] solved the single and multiarea UC problem
using priority order based on a classical index.
C. Dynamic Programming
Stated in power system parlance, the essence of dynamic programming is for the total running cost of carrying x megawatt
(MW) of load on N generating units to be a minimum, the load
y MW carried by unit N must be such that the remaining load
of
MW is carried by the remaining
units also
at minimum cost. In mathematical form
where
minimum running cost of carrying x MW load
on N generating units;
cost of carrying y MW load on unit N;
minimum cost of carrying the remaining
MW load on the remaining
units.
Dynamic programming was the earliest optimization-based
method to be applied to the UC problem. It is used extensively
throughout the world. It has the advantage of being able to solve
problems of a variety of sizes and to be easily modified to model
characteristics of specific utilities [107], [136]. It is relatively
easy to add constraints that affect operations at an hour since
these constraints mainly affect the economic dispatch and solution method [33]. It is more difficult to include constraints [57]
that affect a single-units operation over time. The disadvantage
of the dynamic programming are its requirement to limit the
commitments considered at any hour and its suboptimal treatment of minimum up and downtime constraints and time-dependent startup costs [22].
In [98], Lowery discussed the practical applicability of
dynamic programming for UC solutions. In 1971, Happ [46]
reported the advantages of personal-computer solutions over
manual commitment solutions and claimed that the savings
obtained are in excess of 1% of the total fuel cost which
translates into U.S. $7000 for a 100-machine system. Pang et
al. [14] compared the performance of four UC methods, three
of which are based on the dynamic programming approach.
1200
F. Lagrangian Relaxation
Based on Lagrangian Relaxation approach, the UC problem
can be written in terms of 1) a cost function that is the sum terms
each involving a single unit, 2) a set of constraints involving
a single unit, and 3) a set of coupling constraints (the generation and reserve constraints), one for each hour in the study
period, involving all of the units. Formally, we can write the UC
problem as follows [30], [86], [126], [128]:
Minimize
Subject to the unit constraints
For all units I, where
and
; and the coupling generation and reserve
constraints
where
are the multipliers associated with the th requirement for time t. Describing the Lagrangian Relaxation method
requires answering the following questions: 1) how do we find
so that the solution to the relaxed problem
the multipliers
is near the optimum, 2) how close to the optimum is the solution, and 3) how do we solve the relaxed problem? Everett and
dual theory together provides us the insight to the above questions and solutions.
Lagrangian Relaxation is also being used regularly by some
utilities [9], [106], [112]. Its utilization in production UC programs is much more recent than the dynamic programming.
It is much more beneficial for utilities with a large number
of units since the degree of suboptimality goes to zero as the
number of units increases. It has also the advantage of being
easily modified to model characteristics of specific utilities. It
is relatively easy to add unit constraints. The main disadvantage
of Lagrangian Relaxation is its inherent suboptimality.
In [7], Merlin et al. proposed a new method for UC using
Lagrangian Relaxation method and validated at Electricite De
France. Aoki et al. [62], [63] applied Lagrangian Relaxation
method for a large-scale optimal UC problem, which includes
three types of units such as usual thermal units, fuel-constrained
thermal units, and pumped storage hydro units. A three-phase
new Lagrangian Relaxation algorithm for UC is proposed by
Zhuang et al. [32]. In the first phase, the Lagrangian dual of
the UC is maximized with standard subgradient technique,
the second phase finds a reserve feasible dual solution, and
followed by a third phase of economic dispatch. Wang et al.
[17] presented a rigorous mathematical method for dealing
with the ramp rate limits in UC and the rotor fatigue effect
J. Expert Systems
Experience is knowledge and understanding knowledge
is intelligence. (Narayana Prasad Padhy)
Expert system is an intelligent computer program that uses
knowledge and inference procedures to solve problems that
are difficult enough to require significant human expertise
for their solutions [29]. Generally, its knowledge is extracted
from human experts in the domain and it attempts to emulate
their methodology and performance [67], [89]. As with skilled
humans, their knowledge in both theoretical and practical, have
been perfected through experience in the domain. Unlike a
human being, however, current programs cannot learn from
their own experience; their knowledge must be extracted from
humans and encoded in a formal language [37].
Expert system-based approach to short-term UC, which is intended to process large generating schedules in real time, [138],
[145], which combines database management with the latest developments in expert system design, and extensive use of manmachine interfaces are used for this investigation. The real-time
processing capability of the proposed system is challenged with
regard to those (integer and linear programming, Lagrangian
Relaxation, etc.) of mathematical programming methods [113],
[137].
Mokhtari et al. [114] developed an expert system-based consultant to assist power system operators in scheduling the operation of generating units. Ouyang et al. [146] proposed a UC
expert system consisting of a commitment schedule database, a
dynamic load pattern matching process, and an interface optimization process. Tong et al. [119] proposed an algorithm for
UC, uses priority list-based heuristics in the form of interface
rules to find a suboptimal schedule for a given load pattern. An
expert system was developed in 1991 by Salam et al. [83] and
used as a preprocessor as well as a postprocessor to the truncated
dynamic programming-based UC program to obtain an operationally feasible solution.
K. Fuzzy Systems
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning
and meaningful statements lose precisions. (Lotfi A.
Zadeh)
Zadeh is credited with introducing the concept of fuzzy sets
in 1965 as a mathematical means of describing vagueness in linguistics. The idea may be considered as a generalization of classical set theory. In the decade since Zadehs pioneering paper on
fuzzy sets, many theoretical developments in fuzzy logic took
place in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. From the mid-1970s to
the present, however, Japanese researchers have done an excellent job of advancing the practical implementation of the
theory; they have been a primary force in commercializing this
technology.
UC is a complex decision-making process [84] which operates appropriate units at different hours and schedules the outputs of the committed units to meet a predicted demand, such
that the operating cost is minimized. Due to the uncertainty of
the demand and outages of generating units [65], this raises the
question of how to tackle the UC problem when the load demand and other variables are imprecise [79], [88], [93], [94]. Re-
1201
1202
P. Hybrid Models
From the literature review, it has been observed that there exists a need for further improvement of the existing UC algorithm. In one end, an algorithm may be simple but suboptimal
and in the other end, complex but accurate [95], [96], [101],
[116]. So to achieve further improvement over the existing algorithm, one must complement the other (techniques). So mainly
more than one algorithm has been merged together and forms a
hybrid model to meet the industry requirement [56], [90], [144].
Su et al. [25] proposed a new fuzzy dynamic programming for
UC problem. A characteristic feature of the presented approach
is that the errors in the forecasted hourly loads can be taken into
account by using fuzzy set notations, making the approach superior to the conventional dynamic programming method. Similarly, Ouyang et al. [54] studied a hybrid ANN-dynamic programming approach to UCt. The proposed algorithm uses an
ANN to generate a preschedule according to the input load profile in the first step. Then, a dynamic search is performed at those
stages where the commitment states of some of the units are not
certain. Ouyang et al. [143] employed a multistage neural network-expert system approach to achieve real-time processing
results. The neural networks are used at the preprocessor and
postprocessor stages and the operating constraints are presented
as heuristic rules in the system where a feasible solution is obtained through inference. A new approach using genetic algorithms-based neural networks and dynamic programming has
been proposed by Huang et al. [125]. Mantawy et al. [3] integrated genetic algorithm, tabu search, and simulated annealing.
In [92] and N. P. Padhy integrated expert system, fuzzy system,
and neural network for a practical UC solution.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper gives an overview of the concept of UC problem,
with a bibliographical survey of relevant background, practical
requirements, the historical events, the present state, and techniques. The citations listed in this bibliography provide a representative sample of current engineering thinking pertaining to
the next generation UC problem. A clear consensus is presently
heading toward the hybrid models, which is the combination
of both classical and nonclassical methods, and can handle the
present day complex UC problem commonly seen within developed countries. The genetic algorithms, evolutionary programming, and ant colony optimization technique are not thoroughly
tested yet. This paper is based on many research articles published in the last 30 years and periodic bibliographic updates on
this topic will be useful as the industry continues to evolve.
REFERENCES
[1] A. H. Mantawy, Y. L. Abdel-Magid, and S. Z. Selim, Unit commitment
by Tabu search, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen. Transm. Dist., vol. 145,
no. 1, pp. 5664, Jan. 1998.
[2]
, A simulated annealing algorithm for unit commitment, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 197204, Feb. 1998.
[3]
, Integrating genetic algoritms, Tabu search and simulated
annealing for the unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 14, pp. 829836, Aug. 1999.
[4] A. I. Cohen, V. Brandwajn, and S. K. Chang, Security constrained unit
commitment for open market, in Proc. 21st IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Int.
Conf. Power Ind. Comput. Applicat., 1999, pp. 3944.
1203
[32] F. Zhuang and F. D. Galiana, Toward a more rigorous and practical unit
commitment by Lagrangian Relaxation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
3, pp. 763773, May 1988.
[33] F. N. Lee, J. Huang, and R. Adapa, Multi-area unit commitment via
sequential method and a dc power flow network model, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 9, pp. 279287, Feb. 1994.
[34] F. N. Lee and Q. Feng, Multi-area unit commitment, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 591599, May 1992.
[35] F. N. Lee, A fuel-constrained unit commitment method, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 4, pp. 12081218, Aug. 1989.
[36]
, The application of commitment utilization factor (CUF) to
thermal unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp.
691698, May 1991.
[37] F. N. Lee and Q. Chen, Unit commitment risk with sequential
rescheduling, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 10171023, Aug.
1991.
[38] F. N. Lee, Short-term unit commitmenta new method, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 3, pp. 421428, May 1988.
[39] G. B. Sheble et al., Unit commitment by genetic algorithm with penalty
methods and a comparison of Lagrangian search and genetic algorithmeconomic dispatch example, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 18,
no. 6, pp. 339346, Feb. 1996.
[40] G. L. Kusic and H. A. Putnam, Dispatch and unit commitment including commonly owned units, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.
PAS-104, pp. 24082412, Sept. 1985.
[41] G. Raina, S. Tong, and S. Nuelk, Unit commitment application builds
up existing EMS, IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 6, pp. 3539, Oct.
1993.
[42] G. S. Lauer, N. R. Sandell Jr., N. R. Bertsekas, and T. A. Posbergh, Solution Of large scale optimal unit commitment problems, IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp. 7996, Jan. 1982.
[43] G. F. Luger and W. A. Stubblefield, Artificial Intelligence. Redwood
City, CA: Benjamin Cummings, 1993.
[44] G. B. Sheble and G. N. Fahd, Unit commitment literature synopsis,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, pp. 128135, Feb. 1994.
[45] G. B. Sheble and T. T. Maifeld, Unit commitment by genetic algorithm
and expert system, Elect. Power Syst. Res., pp. 115121, Aug. 1994.
[46] H. H. Happ, R. C. Johnson, and W. J. Wright, Large scale hydro-thermal
unit commitment-method and results, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,
vol. PAS-90, pp. 13731384, Aug. 1971.
[47] H. Ma and S. M. Shahidehpour, Decomposition approach to unit commitment with reactive constraints, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen. Transm.
Dist., vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 113117, Mar. 1997.
[48] H. Mori and O. Matsuzaki, Embedding the priority into Tabu search for
unit commitment, in Proc. IEEE Winter Meeting, 2000.
[49] H. Sasaki, M. Watanabe, and R. Yokoyama, A solution method of unit
commitment by artificial neural networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 7, pp. 974981, Aug. 1992.
[50] H. Sasaki, M. Watanabe, J. Kubokawa, N. Yorina, and R. Yokoyama,
A solution method of unit commitment by artificial neural network,
in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, 1991.
[51] H. T. Yang, P. C. Yang, and C. L. Huang, Evolutionary programming
based economic dispatch for units with non smooth fuel cost functions,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 112118, Feb. 1996.
[52] H. Ma and S. M. Shahidehpour, Unit commitment with transmission
security and voltage constraints, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp.
757764, May 1999.
[53] H. Chen and X. Wang, Cooperative coevolutionary algorithm for unit
commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 128133, Feb. 2002.
[54] X. Hindsberger and H. F. M. Ravn, Multiresolution modeling of hydrothermal systems, in Proc. 22nd IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Int. Conf. Power
Ind. Comput. Applicat., 2001, pp. 510.
[55] H. Yang, P. Yang, and C. Huang, A parallel genetic algorithm approach
to solving the unit commitment problem: implementation on the transputer networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, pp. 661668, May
1997.
[56] H. Li, P. Chen, and H. Huang, Fuzzy Neural Intelligence Systems. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 2001.
[57] J. D. Guy, Security constrained unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst., vol. PAS-90, pp. 13851389, May/June 1971.
[58] J. M. Arroyo and A. J. Conejo, A parallel repair genetic algorithm to
solve the unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17,
pp. 12161224, Nov. 2002.
[59] J. R. McDonald, G. M. Burt, J. S. Zielinski, and S. D. J. McArthur,
Intelligent Knowledge Based Systems in Electrical Power Engineering,
1st ed. London, U.K.: Chapman & Hall, 1997.
1204
[111] R. Billinton, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and S. Aboreshaid, Unit commitment health analysis for interconnected systems, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 12, pp. 11941201, Aug. 1997.
[112] S. K. Tong and S. M. Shahidehpour, Combination of Lagrangian-Relaxation and linear-programming approaches for fuel-constrained unit
commitment problems, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen. Transm. Dist., vol.
136, pp. 162174, May 1989.
[113] S. Li, S. M. Shahidehpour, and C. Wang, Promoting the application
of expert systems in short-term unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 3, pp. 286292, Mar. 1993.
[114] S. Mukhtari, J. Singh, and B. Wollenberg, A unit commitment expert
system, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, pp. 272277, Feb. 1988.
[115] S. O. Orero and M. R. Irving, A genetic algorithm for generator scheduling in power systems, Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
1926, 1996.
, Large scale unit commitment using a hybrid genetic algorithms,
[116]
Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 4555, 1997.
[117] S. Sen and D. P. Kothari, Optimal thermal generating unit commitment:
a review, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 443451,
1998.
[118] S. Vemuri and L. Lemonidis, Fuel constrained unit commitment, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 410415, Feb. 1991.
[119] S. K. Tong and S. M. Shahidehpour, Hydro thermal unit commitment
with probabilistic constraints using segmentation method, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 5, pp. 276282, Feb. 1990.
[120] S. Takriti and J. R. Birge, Using integer programming to refine Lagrangian-based unit commitment solutions, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 15, pp. 151156, Feb. 2000.
[121] S. Takriti, J. R. Birge, and E. Long, A stochastic model for the unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 14971508,
Aug. 1996.
[122] S. Saneifard, N. R. Prasad, and H. A. Smolleck, A fuzzy logic approach
to unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, pp. 988995,
May 1997.
[123] S.-Y. Lai and R. Baldick, Unit commitment with ramp multipliers,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, pp. 5864, Feb. 1999.
[124] S.-J. Huang, Enhancement of hydroelectric generation scheduling
using ant colony system based optimization approaches, IEEE Trans.
Energy Conversion, vol. 16, pp. 296301, Sept. 2001.
[125] S.-J. Huang and C.-L. Huang, Application of genetic-based neural network to thermal unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12,
pp. 654660, May 1997.
[126] S. Ruzic and N. Rajakovic, A new approach for solving extended unit
commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 269277,
Feb. 1991.
[127] S. Sen and D. P. Kothari, Evaluation of benefit of inter-area energy
exchange of the indian power systems based on multi-area unit commitment approach, Elect. Mach. Power Syst., vol. 26, pp. 801813, 1998.
[128] S. Virmani, E. C. Adrian, K. Imhof, and S. Muhherjee, Implementation
of a Lagrangian based unit commitment problem, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 4, pp. 13731380, Nov. 1989.
[129] T. J. Larsen, I. Wangensteen, and T. Gjengedal, Sequential time step
unit commitment, in Proc. IEEE Winter Meeting, 2001.
[130] T. S. Dillon, K. W. Edwin, H. D. Kochs, and R. J. Taud, Integer programming approach to the problem of optimal unit commitment with
probabilistic reserve determination, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.
PAS-97, pp. 21542166, Nov./Dec. 1978.
[131] T. K. Siu, G. A. Nash, and Z. K. Shawwash, A practical hydro, dynamic
unit commitment and loading model, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16,
pp. 301306, May. 2001.
[132] T. T. Maifeld and G. B. Sheble, Genetic-based unit commitment algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 13591370, Aug. 1996.
[133] U. D. Annakkage, T. Numnonda, and N. C. Pahalawaththa, Unit commitment by parallel simmulated annealing, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen.
Transm. Dist., vol. 142, pp. 595600, 1995.
[134] Y. R. Sood, N. P. Padhy, and H. O. Gupta, Discussion on optimal power
flow by enhanced genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18,
p. 1219, Aug. 2003.
1205
[135] W. J. Hobbs, G. Hermon, S. Warner, and G. B. Sheble, An enhanced dynamic programming approach for unit commitment, IEEE Power Eng.
Rev., p. 70, Aug. 1988.
[136] W. L. Snyder, Jr., H. D. Powell, Jr., and J. C. Rayburn, Dynamic programming approach to unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
2, pp. 339347, May 1987.
[137] X. Bai and S. M. Shahidehpour, Extended neighborhood search algorithm for constrained unit commitment, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 349356, 1997.
[138] X. Guan, P. B. Luh, and H. Yan, An optimization based method for unit
commitment, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 917,
Feb. 1992.
[139] X. Lei, E. Lerch, and C. Y. Xie, Frequency security constrained
short-term unit commitment, Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 60, pp.
193200, Jan. 2002.
[140] X. Ma, A. A. El-Keib, R. E. Smith, and H. Ma, A genetic algorithm
based approach to thermal unit commitment of electric power systems,
Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 34, pp. 2936, 1995.
[141] Y.-Y. Hsu, C.-C. Su, C.-C. Liang, C.-J. Lin, and C.-T. Huang, Dynamic
security constrained multi-area unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 6, pp. 10491055, Aug. 1991.
[142] Z. Ouyang and S. M. Shahidehpour, Heuristic multi-area unit commitment with economic dispatch, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen. Transm.
Dist., vol. 138, pp. 242252, May 1991.
[143]
, A hybrid artificial neural network-dynamic programming
approach to unit commitment, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp.
236242, Feb. 1992.
, A multi-stage intelligent system for unit commitment, IEEE
[144]
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, pp. 639646, May 1992.
[145]
, An intelligent dynamic programming for unit commitment application, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 6, pp. 12031209, Aug. 1991.
, Short-term unit commitment expert system, Elect. Power Syst.
[146]
Res., pp. 113, Dec. 1990.
[147] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithm+Data Structure=Evolution Programs, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[148] A. Rajan, C. C. Mohan, and M. R. Manivannan, Neural based tabu
search method for solving unit commitment problem, in Proc. 5th Int.
Conf. Power Syst. Manage. Contr., 2002, pp. 180185.
[149] H. Mori and T. Usami, Unit commitment using tabu search with restricted neighborhood, in Proc. Intell. Syst. Applicat. Power Syst., 1996,
pp. 422427.
[150] W.-M. Lin, F.-S. Cheng, and M.-T. Tsay, An improved tabu search for
economic dispatch with multiple minima, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
17, pp. 108112, Feb. 2002.
[151] A. H. Mantawy, S. A. Soliman, and M. E. El-Hawary, A new tabu search
algorithm for the long-term hydro scheduling problem, in Proc. Large
Eng. Syst. Conf. Power Eng., June 2002, pp. 2934.
Narayana Prasad Padhy received the electrical engineering and M.E. degrees in power system engineering (Hons.) from Madurai Kamaraj University,
India, in 1990 and 1993, respectively. He received
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Anna
University, Chennai, India, in 1997.
Currently, he is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Electrical Engineering at the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee, India. He
was Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering
Department at the Birla Institute of Technology
and Science (BITS), Pilani, India, in 1997. He taught courses in basic
electrical engineering, power system, and artificial intelligence. His research
interests include power systems privatization, restructuring and deregulation,
artificial intelligence applications to power systems operation and optimization
problems, unit commitment, power systems wheeling, and FACTS.